Hi Milton - I'm surprised to be exhorted to be honest, or to be seen as supporting subterfuge and diversion. That's not my perception of myself or of how I think things should be done; nor do I think I've given you cause to think that. The issues that have been raised as a problem with U.S. control of the root are that (1) it is isn't fair to other nation states and their citizens (2) its decisions aren't subject to review, and (3) it favors its creature, ICANN, over other policy-setting groups. Note that these problems are different than problems one might have with ICANN itself. On the plus side, it hasn't interfered much with ICANN -- though some wish they would -- except to tell Paul Twomey that no, he couldn't transform ICANN into an International Olympic Committee-style luncheon club. The alternatives are exactly zero - the U.S. gov't is not putting in the hands of any other group the ability to shut down .mil or .gov with a keystroke. That will not change with the new administration. Unlike you perhaps, I am not upset about this. Why? The alternatives. My experience as the leader of the Policy Advisory Body within the pre-ICANN IAHC, whose leaders included the ITU, WIPO, and other UN-affiliated institutions is that there is a great deal of subterfuge and diversion in these ranks. Then, I was both amused and disgusted by the WSIS meeting in Tunis, hosted by a government called an "enemy of the Internet" by Reporters Without Borders, and giving privileged speaking status to leaders of governments who engage in jailing of cyberdissents (Tunisia), forced relocation of political enemies (Zimbabwe), imprisonment of political dissidents (Cuba), and genocide (Sudan). Now add to this august group of dictatorships the government of China, the leading practitioner of censorship on the Internet. How is this defensible? How is this better than ICANN? - Antony